(Cross posted at Living in the O.)

Next Thursday, transit advocates have what will probably be our best chance to change the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) from an incredibly wasteful rail connection with $6 fares into a much cheaper rapid bus connection that could potentially be free for riders. At the last meeting, 11 of us spoke out against the current OAC project and in favor of a bus solution, and we made a huge difference, with the BART Board nearly unanimously agreeing to postpone the vote so more studies could be done on a rapid bus option. Imagine what a difference 50 or 100 of us could make next week.

Please join us at the BART Board meeting to reclaim transit funding for BART, AC Transit, and other Bay Area transit agencies and to secure a project that make sense for the region:

What: BART Board Meeting on the Oakland Airport Connector

When: Thursday, May 14th @ 9am (TransForm recommends showing up by 8:30 if you’d like to get a seat in the Board room; if not, there is an overflow room.)

Where: Kaiser Center – Third Floor, 344 20th Street in Oakland

If you cannot make it to the meeting, but want to tell the BART directors how you feel, please send an email via TransForm’s action page. You can find a pre-written message there, but I encourage you to take the time to personalize the email, as non-form letters are always more effective.

OK, now that you’re on board to take action, onto the fun stuff. BART has put transit advocates in a similar situation to the one we just had in Oakland, when redevelopment staff refused to look into alternatives for the surface parking lot so advocates (well, mostly me and dto510) had to do research into displaying public art. Though the BART Board directed staff to look into a bus rapid transit (BRT) alternative, we weren’t convinced they would so TransForm went ahead and did the research themselves and produced a phenomenal report in two weeks about a bus alternative that they’re calling RapidBART. Pictured below is what RapidBART would look like, exiting the Coliseum BART station.

So what makes RapidBART so much better than the current OAC proposal? Via the report, it would:

• Cost dramatically less (possibly as much 90% less to build!).
• Use some of the existing funds dedicated to building the Oakland Airport Connector to make service free to riders in perpetuity.
• Have similar travel times to the proposed Connector.
• Allow intermediate stops to better serve the East Oakland community.
• Stop in front of any future terminals at almost no cost.
• Keep BART from incurring any debt or risk.
• Result in more, sustainable long-term jobs.

Sounds pretty damn good to me, but I wouldn’t blame you if you thought this sounded too good to be true. Fortunately, John Knox White and Stuart Cohen of TransForm did a thorough job researching the numbers and logistics and created a solid plan. Below are some questions you might have that they answer in the report.

How will RapidBART run more quickly than the current AirBART bus?

If you’ve taken AirBART, then you know that the main delay is often loading of passengers. I’ve seen loading take up to 15 minutes as everyone squeezes through the front door, fumbles for the correct change, and moves slowly with luggage. RapidBART would have multiple doors for loading and unloading, just like BART does. Better yet, it will be free, which means you won’t have to wait while someone tries to find change for a $20 bill.

The other delays on AirBART are caused by getting stopped at traffic signals and getting stuck in car traffic. Signals can easily be dealt with using signal prioritization, which can keep a light green until RapidBART passes through. Navigating past traffic can be accomplished by using right hand queue jump lanes. Often, traffic gets backed up at intersections:

A queue jump lane would allow RapidBART to enter the right turn lane, crossing the intersection before car traffic can move, and then merging back into the mixed flow lane:

Queue jump lanes would be placed at most intersections throughout the route. Then, when RapidBART reached Airport Drive, it would enter its own dedicated bus lane.

How much cheaper would RapidBART be to build, compared to OAC?

A lot. OAC would cost $550 million while RapidBART is projected to cost $45-$60 million. That’s a savings of $500 million!

What could be done with the savings?

The $70 million of stimulus funds would be reallocated back to the transit agencies, including BART, which would receive $15 million that could be used to halt some of their service cuts and/or fare increases. (AC Transit, Muni, and other agencies could do the same with their shares.)

Other funds could be used to subsidize fares so that the system would be free:

In particular, TransForm is recommending that BART request the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to shift the $65 million of Regional Measure 2 funds designated for the Oakland Airport Connector into an annual operating revenue source.

If additional funds are needed then some of OAC’s Regional Measure 1 funds could be used. Another source could be the Port of Oakland’s proposed contribution, which could be used as an endowment in an interest-bearing account that throws off an annual operating dividend. (The Port’s contribution could be reduced from the $44 million currently slated).

Another idea I’ve heard that isn’t expressed in the TransForm report is to use some of the savings to help fund the construction of a transit village around the Coliseum BART station. Oakland City Councilmember Larry Reid and BART Director Carol Ward-Allen are both strongly committed to building a transit village there so hopefully they’ll see that the savings from RapidBART could greatly benefit this project.

Where would RapidBART stop?

The first stop would be at the Coliseum BART station, in an enclosed area underneath the BART platform. It would then head down Hegenberger and stop somewhere in between BART and the airport. TransForm proposes stopping at Pardee and Hegenberger, but the great thing about RapidBART is that it’s easily adjustable. As business grows in the area, a RapidBART station could be moved for a small cost, or another intermediary stop could be built.

At the airport, RapidBART would stop at both terminals, where the AirBART currently stops. The total walk time to either of the terminals would be 2 minutes. The rail OAC, on the other hand, would stop in between the terminals and passengers would have to walk down to street level and across parking lots. TransForm estimates that this would take 3 minutes. However, if Oakland Airport were to build a third terminal (which has been discussed), it would take 7-8 minutes to walk to this new terminal from OAC. It would be easy and cheap to build a third RapidBART station so the time it would take to walk to a third terminal from RapidBART would also be just 2 minutes.

What would the RapidBART schedule be?

The RapidBART would operate the same hours as BART and would have 4-10 minute headways depending on the time of day.

But isn’t rail so much more comfortable than buses?

It doesn’t have to be that way. Check out these pictures of the Eindhoven Airport BRT connector. To me, they look even more comfortable than BART.

Previous posts on the Oakland Airport Connector:

• 4/27/09: Advocates secure temporary win on the Oakland Airport Connector
• 4/22/09: BART’s brilliant plant for financing the Oakland Airport Connector
• 2/23/09: Protect Bay Area Transit: Stop MTC from Wasting Stimulus Funds

Radulovich grilled staff about the wisdom of borrowing $150 million for this project, since that would take away borrowing capacity for other priorities, like replacing rail cars. He also questioned their ridership estimates (as I have), saying they clearly are not conservative, especially since they do not estimate any ridership drop once high speed rail is in service.

Radulovich was very concerned that BRT had not been explored recently, even though it seemed like a good fit. He told a story that I have told so many times about BRT. Radulovich, like me, grew up in the San Fernando Valley, where no one rode the bus (or any transit) unless they absolutely had to. But then the BRT Orange Line was built, and they met their 2020 ridership projections in just a couple of years. That success sold Radulovich on the BRT concept. As I often argue, if BRT will pull LA drivers out of their cars, it can do the same in the East Bay.

The biggest complaint from Radulovich was about the proposed fair for the rail OAC. He argued that the $6 fare would be more expensive than traveling to SFO and would be unfair to airport workers. Though some of his colleagues have argued that those who can’t afford it could just ride the bus, he said that it wasn’t right to have a two tiered system. Besides the social justice aspects, the two tiered system would negate any environmental impacts since the buses would still have to run.

At the end of his speech, Radulovich presented a perfect analogy. He said that in a house, you fix the foundation before adding a master suite or a jacuzzi. He then retracted that and said the BART system was closer to being a house on fire. Can you imagine upgrading a house as it burned to the ground? That’s basically what the BART Board would be doing if they borrow $150 million and allow the OAC project to move forward as is.

Several of Radulovich’s colleagues echoed his concerns but ultimately almost all of them sounded like they would vote to take out the loan. Luckily, Director Franklin saved the issue by proposing to delay the vote on the loan until the next meetin, and all the directors voted for this, except for Carol Ward-Allen, who abstained.

BART will be considering this issue again on Thursday, May 14th. I have no delusions that it will be easy to convince the directors that the right move is to scrap the current proposal in favor of a much cheaper and more effective BRT project. After all, we’re going up against BART staff, construction unions, business interests, and Oakland Councilmember Larry Reid. But BRT would be the right move – for Oakland, for BART, and for the greater Bay Area – and transit advocates are going to do our best to convince the directors of that.

Check back later this week for much more info and for ways to get involved.

Which brings me to another point that I don’t think I covered well enough in the last post on this subject. One of the reasons that I don’t think BART can meet its ridership projections for the OAC is because this rail project would only have two stops – Coliseum BART and the Oakland Airport. There will be no stops in between, and since the project is so expensive, I’m guessing there will be no chance for future expansion past the Coliseum BART.

If instead, we built a state of the art BRT system – complete with gorgeous buses with low floors and attractive stations – there could be several stops between BART and the aiport. Not only that, but since BRT is so much cheaper, we could use some of the savings to expand the BRT project beyond BART to the 1/1R line, which will ultimately be a BRT line. It could even be expanded further, to Eastmont Mall, which is already a transit hub. This would mean that a BRT airport connector would serve East Oakland residents, in addition to serving air travelers. And with an ultimate savings that could be redistributed among Bay Area transit agencies to halt fair raises and/or service cuts.

I’ll be going to the BART Board meeting tomorrow morning to tell them all of this. If you’d like to join me, the meeting is at 9:00am at the Kaiser Center 20th Street Mall – Third Floor, 344 – 20th Street in Oakland.

Note: I work for the Courage Campaign

Still vivid in my memory is the night in March 1991 when I stayed up to watch the KTLA News at Ten for their breaking news, which turned out to be a shocking video of the LAPD beating the hell out of a guy they’d pulled over – Rodney King. It came against the background of rampant police brutality under the leadership of Darryl Gates, and even as I watched the video I knew that the public reaction would be furious.

At least Rodney King survived the attack. Oscar Grant did not. When he was shot and killed by a BART police officer on New Year’s Day it revealed an ongoing lack of accountability from the BART police toward the public they serve. As the San Francisco Bay Guardian noted BART police have been involved in two other shooting deaths that appeared unjustified in recent years.

At yesterday’s BART board meeting activists demanded the creation of an oversight board along with other measures to reform BART and bring the officer who killed Oscar Grant to justice. Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and Senator Leland Yee have proposed legislation at the state level to mandate BART create such a board.

If that effort is going to be successful, the public needs to mobilize behind the creation of a civilian oversight board – that has real teeth – for the BART police.

That’s why the Courage Campaign is asking our members to sign a letter supporting the creation of an oversight board for BART. Our effort is cosponsored by ColorofChange.org.

Oscar Grant deserves justice, and the officer who shot him needs to be held accountable. We also need to work to ensure that this horrible event never happens again on the BART system. A civilian oversight board is a necessary step in that direction. Properly implemented, it can mandate changes in BART police methods, and provide the public transparency and accountability in police actions. The board can help get to the bottom of controversies and rebuild trust that is clearly lacking.

The civilian oversight board won’t solve the problems alone. But it is a necessary part of the long-term solution.

The email we sent out today is reproduced over the flip.

Dear Friend,

Never again.

I’m sure you’ve seen the shocking video.

On January 1, Oscar Grant — already subdued by police and lying face down — was shot in the back and killed by a BART police officer at the Fruitvale station.

BART’s failure to take direct action and immediately investigate this tragedy has fueled community outrage. As a resident of San Francisco and frequent BART rider, I was deeply disturbed, as were my fellow Courage Campaign staff members.

Unfortunately, this tragedy is not a first for the BART police force, which has been accused in the past of using excessive and unnecessary force in two other shooting deaths. In this case, however, multiple cell phone videos have been released revealing the shocking events that ended Oscar Grant’s life.

One way we can bring justice to Oscar Grant and heal the community is to make sure his horrifying death produces long-overdue change — change that may prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.

Unlike most police departments around the country, BART police are not subject to a civilian oversight board. For years, Bay Area citizens have called for BART to create one — like the boards that have improved accountability and police conduct in so many other communities.

But BART has refused.

Never again. Last night, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and Senator Leland Yee promised to introduce legislation requiring BART to create a civilian oversight board. While this is a significant step in the right direction, we must ensure that the legislature passes a strong bill.

Will you join the Courage Campaign and our friends at Color of Change by signing on to our letter thanking Ammiano and Yee for their legislation — and demanding that the leglislature pass a bill with the strongest civilian oversight possible?

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

The officer who shot and killed Oscar Grant must be held accountable. But that alone will not ensure this never happens to any other BART rider again.

Public accountability is the foundation of justice. At a time when public trust in the BART police is at rock bottom, a citizen oversight board would provide the community vigilance that BART is currently evading — and that has allowed BART’s past impunity to fester.

As Tom Ammiano and Leland Yee point out, “unlike the San Francisco Police Commission, BART lacks any real means for the public to air their grievances regarding police conduct or for an independent body that can propose corrective actions.”

Never again. Please sign our letter to Assemblymember Ammiano and Senator Yee supporting their call for a BART police civilian oversight board and demanding that the bill provide the strongest citizen oversight possible. With your support, we can ensure that Sacramento legislators, the BART board and the BART police department understand our community’s demand for justice in the memory of Oscar Grant:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

We grieve with Oscar Grant’s family. And, along with our friends at Color of Change, we stand with the community in determination that his death will bring real change — the kind of fundamental reform that will prevent a tragedy like this from ever happening again.

Thank you,

Eden James

Managing Director

By Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

In Santa Clara County they want to extend Bay Area Rapid Transit down to San Jose.  To fund this they put Measure B, a 1/8 cent sales tax, on the ballot.  In California all tax measures must pass by a 2/’3 margin and on Election Day the voters approved Measure B by a 2/3 margin.

That would be the end of it, except the vote was very close to exactly 2/3.  For several days it looked as though the measure would fail because it reached a few votes short of exactly 66.66% but when the last ballot was counted the result was 66.78% in favor.  So in the face of a 2/3 vote by the people, a group sued to block certification pending a recount.  Yes, with 2/3 of the public voting for this, a group sued to stop it!

My observation is that this demonstrates something important about the “anti-tax” forces in our state.  Their intent is to hobble our democracy and thwart the will of the people.  It is time for us to take back democracy and return majority vote to tax measures!  

It is nearly impossible to get 2/3 for anything, ever, in an election.  Clearly this 2/3 requirement is about hobbling democracy, not protecting rights.  The public wanted to bring BART to San Jose.  A remarkable 2/3 voted for this, yet a group sues based on the count being close to exactly 2/3.  And in our state legislature the budget process has completely broken down as a 1/3 minority blocks every budget, every compromise and every last attempt to pass sensible measures to run our state!  We are now in a “Fiscal Emergency,” cutting back our schools and laying people off during a recession.  This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing and of what the public wants, but there is no choice because we are hobbled by rules that anti-government extremists managed to sneak past misinformed voters decades ago.

We must get rid of the 2/3 requirement.  It is time.  Democracy and good government are back in fashion so let’s get on with it!

(By the way, California’s Secretary of State ruled that the law says automatic recounts occur when the vote count is very close to 50/50.  Since the vote count was 2/3 the law does not apply even though the election was close. A judge ruled Tuesday that the attempt to block Measure B came too late.

Click through to Speak Out California

I doubt I was the only Californian who had some nasty feelings of déjà vu upon seeing the reports from the horrific collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minnesota. I still vividly remember Game 3 of the 1989 World Series being knocked off the air by the Loma Prieta quake, and one of the first scenes shown by the news was of the collapsed Interstate 880 in West Oakland. I also remember being rudely awoken by the 1994 Northridge quake, and seeing the footage of the collapsed portion of Interstate 10 in LA, or of the destroyed CA-14/I-5 interchange in Santa Clarita. Nearly 50 people died as a result of these events. Living in earthquake country, we are acutely aware of how susceptible our bridges are to failure.

It is rapidly becoming clear that this is a tragedy caused by the preference of tax cuts over public safety. And sadly, irresponsibly, and indefensibly, the same situation prevails here in California. Last month, Assembly Republicans demanded and received a $1.3 billion cut in transportation funding, in order to provide tax cuts to industry as a condition of approving the budget. One of the items included in that $1.3 billion cut was funding for the seismic retrofit of BART’s Transbay Tube.

In the aftermath of Northridge, California embarked upon a massive program to seismically retrofit all bridges in the freeway system. It’s hard to fathom that in just over a decade, California Republicans have gone from being a party willing to help rebuild and provide for the safety of state infrastructure to being a party that is not only willing, but demands that funds be cut to do the same thing for other elements of our transportation system.

It’s not just the Transbay Tube that needs attention. BART’s elevated tracks are just as vulnerable to seismic risk. There are thousands of non-freeway road bridges that need attention; rail bridges and other elements of our transportation system are aging. And that doesn’t even begin to include other state infrastructure, from dams to aqueducts to buildings, that have deferred maintenance piling up.

Sometimes – most times, it seems – it takes a disaster to wake up the public. The aforementioned freeway retrofit program did not begin until after the rash of quakes in the late ’80s and early ’90s. In Washington State, voters who had never seen a tax cut they didn’t like instead voted FOR a 9 cent hike in the gas tax just weeks after Hurricane Katrina revealed the need to take better care of infrastructure. Seattle voters approved a property tax hike last year to rebuild old city bridges. And of course, California voters approved several billion in bonds last year to address infrastructure needs.

Yet despite the obvious need – and proven danger – Republicans still insist on cutting funds for these in order to give their wealthy friends more tax cuts. Their recklessness on public safety, and their determination to hold up the budget to ensure it, is something Californians will have to reject at the polls.

What do these six points have in common?

What is going on in your neighborhood?